SNES: Spacy Funky B.O.B. Source Code

Discussion of hardware and software development for Super NES and Super Famicom.

Moderator: Moderators

Forum rules
  • For making cartridges of your Super NES games, see Reproduction.
MatthewCallis
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

SNES: Spacy Funky B.O.B. Source Code

Post by MatthewCallis » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:52 am

You may have seen it on eBay quite a few weeks ago or on another forum, and here it is in all it's antique glory. The source code to an average early Super Nintendo game. Hopefully someone will be able to make good use of it, because anything is better than it sitting on my or anyone else's shelf or hard drive gathering dust. But if you do make some use of it, PLEASE let me know!

Find it on my www site.

And if you're into to prototypes or Satellaview items, I post those every time I get a chance to sit down and work on the same site as the above.

tepples
Posts: 21841
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Contact:

Post by tepples » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:59 am

I couldn't find any copyright information in the archive. Who owns copyright in this, and under what license is it distributed?

MatthewCallis
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by MatthewCallis » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:24 am

tepples wrote:I couldn't find any copyright information in the archive.
Me either.
tepples wrote:Who owns copyright in this,
Don't know.
tepples wrote:under what license is it distributed?
License? Public Domain?

User avatar
blargg
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Central Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by blargg » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:32 am

Copyright defaults to no rights for anyone but the rights holder, so a lack of license = no license, not public domain. This is most likely not public domain.

Also, the zip file had all these extra files in it. It looks like the crap Mac OS X puts in. Also, it looks like Disk D & E have both the zip files and their decompressed contents (about 1.7 MB wasted).

MatthewCallis
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by MatthewCallis » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:06 am

blargg wrote:Copyright defaults to no rights for anyone but the rights holder, so a lack of license = no license, not public domain. This is most likely not public domain.
Oh, okay. It's still likely the only copy left as the company has been taken over more than once.
blargg wrote:Also, the zip file had all these extra files in it. It looks like the crap Mac OS X puts in. Also, it looks like Disk D & E have both the zip files and their decompressed contents (about 1.7 MB wasted).
They're in there because the only extract correctly on a certain few windows apps, plus they have the original time stamps.
No space wasted, I just re-compressed it sans zips and its the same size.

byuu
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:23 pm
Contact:

Post by byuu » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:11 am

Oh, okay. It's still likely the only copy left as the company has been taken over more than once.
No worries. It was released in 1993, so it's already 15 years old. So long as Disney / Bono do not extend copyright further, it should be public domain (and thus, legally useful) in a mere eighty years. So yeah, our grand kids might be able to make use of this shortly after their retirement.

That said, I did want to thank you for your work on getting more BS-X images out there. That's very much needed and extremely valuable, thank you :)

tepples
Posts: 21841
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Contact:

Post by tepples » Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:40 am

I asked primarily because I'm trying to figure out whether that link could get Parodius Networking in trouble.

User avatar
blargg
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Central Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by blargg » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:22 am

And just in case it's unclear, I'm simply posting facts about copyright so people can make informed decisions. I don't believe in warping facts to suit any agenda (even though that's about all the Copyright Cartel does). If I were arguing that something be removed or whatever, I'd say "I think this should be removed".

byuu
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:23 pm
Contact:

Post by byuu » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:18 pm

blargg wrote:I think this should be removed
Well, you heard the man, tepples :P

Xkeeper
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:35 am

Post by Xkeeper » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:06 am

With that completely asinine logic (it isn't hosted here, is it?), then we should forbid links to any webpage, document, image, xeroxed buttocks, whatever -- is copyrighted.

But then again, you have shown that you guys aren't a stranger to selective ignorance of copyrights.

User avatar
blargg
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Central Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by blargg » Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:55 am

Xkeeper, what to do YOU think is reasonable? Links to anything, even though that has gotten other sites shut down? Keep in mind that the purpose of this board and site is NES development.

Xkeeper
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:35 am

Post by Xkeeper » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:17 pm

blargg wrote:Xkeeper, what to do YOU think is reasonable? Links to anything, even though that has gotten other sites shut down? Keep in mind that the purpose of this board and site is NES development.
My stance is still that anything being sold for profit at this time should not be linked to as a free download, e.g. recent games and such.

The rest of my policy basically rests on "Will be removed by request of owner". It's just a link, after all -- if they wanted to get rid of it permanently, they would probably go after the people hosting it.

User avatar
blargg
Posts: 3715
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Location: Central Texas, USA
Contact:

Post by blargg » Sat Sep 13, 2008 2:29 pm

Xkeeper, I like your stance. tepples (and other admins), what's preventing that policy here?

Xkeeper
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:35 am

Post by Xkeeper » Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:56 pm

blargg wrote:Xkeeper, I like your stance. tepples (and other admins), what's preventing that policy here?
Thanks :) It's worked well for a lot of other places, too :P


[size=75%](Unfortunately, my views of the nesdev administration is a bit low. A lot of bad decisions and seemingly clueless dealing with bots and the like doesn't help.)[/size]

User avatar
BMF54123
Posts: 407
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:52 am
Contact:

Post by BMF54123 » Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:19 pm

I've visited and/or moderated a great deal of messageboards whose policies are not nearly as black-and-white as this one's, and not one of them has received so much as a threat from copyright holders. Admins just need to use a mix of good judgment and common sense when deciding whether to remove links, taking into account both the reasoning behind the initial post and the content behind the link. What do you think a copyright holder is more likely to target: a fully-compiled ROM image of a popular commercial game, or crusty old source code from a defunct developer's backup disks? Which one would actually be usable in some way by the majority of users that download it? Which one still has the potential to bring in money, via VC/XBLA/retro game compilations?

Post Reply